|
|
|
August 2, 2001 Brian J. Hug, Environmental Specialist RE: Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) Analysis for the Baltimore Region Dear Mr. Hug, We the undersigned groups submit the following comments on the analysis of Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) for the Baltimore region conducted by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) in conjunction with the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), and the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB). We have three primary critiques of this analysis. First, we believe it was conducted under an inaccurate reading of the federal Clean Air Act – an interpretation that tends to exclude measures that we believe would otherwise be found "reasonably available." Second, even assuming MDE’s definition of RACM, the analysis never indicates the reductions necessary for the Baltimore region to reach attainment by 2004, preventing the reader from performing any basic evaluation of the analysis. Third, MDE and the other agencies cite some promising measures, but a close reading reveals no real analysis done to enable a determination of cost-effectiveness. Finally, we are concerned that we can find no public notification of the comment period or hearing for this analysis on the MDE, MDOT, or Baltimore Metropolitan Council web sites. Whereas we appreciate those agency’s efforts to keep the Baltimore Regional Partnership abreast of developments in this analysis, we are concerned that it would have been virtually impossible for an interested citizen relying on the internet to learn of this process. Incorrect Interpretation of the Clean Air Act We agree with the contention of the Sierra Club in their brief filed May 25, 2001 that the kind of narrow interpretation of RACM used by MDE, MDOT and the BRTB in this document is inconsistent with the federal Clean Air Act. Sierra Club cites Section 172(c)(1) of the Act as stating that State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for nonattainment areas "shall provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures [RACM] as expeditiously as practicable…." This requirement is separate from the language in sections 181 and 182 of the Act that require that SIPs demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard "as expeditiously as practicable." (Opening Brief of Sierra Club, Sierra Club, vs. U.S.EPA, p. 39) Thus, we believe an accurate reading of the Clean Air Act does not tie the definition of RACM to the advancement of the attainment date. We also agree with Sierra Club’s assertion that the Clean Air Act does not limit the purpose of a SIP to the one year in which federal health standards are attained. Rather, the law states that a SIP’s purpose includes "eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the national ambient air quality standards and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards." (42 U.S.C. § 7506(c)(A)(emphasis added). We believe that, under a more literal interpretation of the Clean Air Act, at a minimum measures currently in use would be found "reasonably available" because they would improve air quality in the region regardless of whether or not they advance attainment. From our read of the RACM analysis, these programs would include at least A.5 Advanced Technology Vehicle Program, E.1 Bus Replacement – MTA Fleet, F.1 Commuter Choice, and I.9 Smart Card. Such a more literal interpretation would also require a more rigorous analysis of some of the measures above and others such as F.3 Discounted Pre-Paid Transit Fare Instruments. With a mandate simply to improve air quality in advance of attainment as much as possible, MDE and the other agencies would need to perform a more fine-tuned analysis of which measures are cost-effective enough to be identified as RACM. In the current document, MDE and the other agencies appear to use the "advance attainment" requirement to pre-empt the need to perform much of that analysis. Needed Reductions Never Identified Setting aside our assertion above for the moment, we are also concerned that the necessary reductions needed to reach attainment of federal health standards for ozone by 2004 are never identified in the document, and we know of no other place to locate that figure. A look at the conformity analysis for the 2001-2005 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the Baltimore region shows analysis conducted for transportation-related pollution only for the years 2002 and 2005. It does not reveal anticipated emissions figures for 2004 that would indicate the needed reductions to reach the 2005 budget levels a year early. Thus, even accepting the RACM interpretation of MDE and the other agencies, there is no way for an outside reader of this analysis to evaluate the legitimacy of its contention that no measures are RACM. Inadequate and Incorrect Analysis In combination with our comments above, we object to the analysis of several measures in the RACM document that we believe are especially promising for near-term emissions reductions. In some cases we believe the analysis is simply incorrect, and in other cases it is inadequate for any real determination. Under A.4 CARB Diesel Fuel, for example, we object to all of the "issues" listed. The A.4 item appears to refer to low-sulfur fuel that the entry indicates will be required nationwide in 2007. It is our understanding that such fuel results in emissions reductions even on otherwise unretrofitted buses (and even greater reductions on buses with additional controls). The first two issues, however, cite new emissions technology that seems to refer to non-fuel pollution control equipment. We believe those assertions are incorrect, given the pollution reductions attainable with cleaner fuel alone. The next three issues under A.4 refer to problems procuring low-diesel fuel before it is required in 2007, and we believe they are inaccurate as well. They ignore the fact that, as of September 2000, New York City Transit has converted its entire bus fleet to ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel. This indicates to us that entrepreneurial refiners are willing to produce low-sulfur diesel to those regions that indicate a desire for it. The issues listed also ignore the potential that New York, Baltimore, potentially together with Washington, DC and Philadephia, could create a substantial East Coast market for low-sulfur diesel fuel well in advance of its 2007 federal requirement. The final two issues listed, which cite opposition by local fuel distributors and wholesalers, are speculative. Finally, MDE and the other agencies use the questionable issues cited to escape calculating the potential emissions benefit altogether! MDE and cooperating agencies should look to the example of New York City and calculate the costs and benefits of converting the MTA bus fleet to ultra-low-sulfur fuel in advance of its requirement in 2007. Of all the measures cited in this analysis, simply substituting cleaner fuel in a centrally maintained fleet of highly polluting vehicles would seem to us to be one of the most obviously ripe for implementation. Similarly, with respect to F.1 Commuter Choice, we object to the lack of a concrete analysis included. The text even states that MDOT is currently conducting its own review of the potential benefits of this in-place program, but it says "the analysis will not be completed in time for this assessment." In much the same vein as introducing a cleaner fuel, this program already enacted by the Maryland General Assembly would seem to be an obvious choice for highly available near-term emissions reductions. An effective analysis would also include the benefits of various types of promotion of this program. The same would be true for F.3 Discounted Pre-Paid Transit Fare Instruments. Under Issues, the RACM document even says that "Maryland state legislation supports this program," but simply because it would require education and outreach, the effort to calculate emissions reductions is rejected out of hand. We object to that omission. Public Notice Here we simply want to raise our concerns about the level of public notice of this document. While we understand that MDE has complied with putting legal notices in area newspapers, a much more obvious and cost-free way of notifying the public is increasingly the internet. While the posting of the RACM document on the MDE web site was helpful, we could find no notice of the comment period, to whom we should send comments, or the August 6 hearing. We believe that to be inadequate public notice of a measure as important as this one. Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on this RACM analysis. Feel free to contact us with any further questions. Sincerely,
|
|
Baltimore
Regional Partnership · 512 Orchard Street · Baltimore, MD 21201-1947 |
